Disposed

Smt. Girijamma v. Sri K H Ramalinga Reddy

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2022RFA/737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular first appeal against a decree for ejection, the Court recorded a settlement whereby appellants agreed to vacate possession by 28.02.2023. The appeal was disposed of in terms of the joint memo with an undertaking to allow appellants to remain until the specified date.

What did the court decide?

Appellants permitted to occupy suit premises till 28.02.2023 and required to vacate thereafter handing over possession to respondent.

Smt. Girijamma Vs Sri K H Ramalinga Reddy — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 737 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶5

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.737 OF 2022 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. GIRIJAMMA, W/O SRI. RAMU, AGED 68 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. RAMU, S/O LATE D.T. GOVINDAPPA, AGED 71 YEARS, BOTH 1 & 2 ARE R/AT NO.29, GROUND FLOOR, 11^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, SUDHAMANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶9

…APPELLANTS

¶10

[BY SMT. ANU MARIA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEVARAJ N., ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. K.H. RAMALINGA REDDY, S/O LATE HONNAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, 11^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, SUDHAMANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

[BY SRI. KIRAN GOWDA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR R.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R (PH)]

¶16

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.01.2022 PASSED IN OS.No.7350/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

RFA No. 737 of 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

During course of this appeal, parties submitted that there was settlement between them and filed joint memo on 02.12.2022, wherein appellants undertook to vacate and handover vacant possession of suit property to custody of respondent on or before 28.02.2023, subject to return of sum of Rs.7,50,000/- paid by appellants to defendants towards security deposit.

¶22

In joint memo, it was stated that respondent would initially pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and would pay remaining amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, at time of handing over vacant possession of suit property. In terms of joint memo, affidavit undertaking is filed by both appellants.

¶23

Appellant no.1 is stated to be sick and bedridden and as such unable to appear physically. However, appellant no.2 and respondent are present and identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, they have stated that they were explained terms of joint memo and after understanding same, they have agreed to terms out of their own volition, without any threat, coercion or inducement by any one. They

¶24

¶25

RFA No. 737 of 2022

¶26

further stated that amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to appellants by way of Demand Draft bearing No.997479 dated 06.12.2022, drawn on State Bank of India, by respondent. Receipt of same was acknowledged by appellants.

¶27

Taking affidavit undertaking on record, appeal is disposed of permitting appellants to occupy suit premises till 28.02.2023. Appellants to vacate and handover vacant possession of suit property on or before said date to respondent. Respondent to pay agreed balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to appellants at time of vacating suit premises.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

GRD

Smt. Girijamma v. Sri K H Ramalinga Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Girijamma v. Sri K H Ramalinga Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sainath Reddy Vs Jayalakshmi

Smt P G Deepthi Vs a S Bheemappa

Sri. K Balasubramani Vs Sri. Bheemashen Kamble

Smt Lakshmidevi Vs Gundappa

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Sahasralingeshwara Enterprises

India Today News Vs Sri. H. Anandappa